Category Archives: Islam

This article arose from discussion with a female Islamic friend, who was experiencing a crisis of faith with respect to the nature of her belief.

One area of concern was the conflict that she felt between following her own dreams and aspirations and following the dictates demanded by her religion’s dogmas and behavioural expectations for women. In particular, she was concerned that her family regarded her as having no ultimate say in her destiny, based on their understanding of Sura 4:34 of the Quran.

ALERT: Please scroll to the bottom if you are looking for Domestic Violence Support Service contact details.

In responding to her, I located an article online that defended the Sura and then addressed the points raised by that author, who far from being horrified that his holy book authorises domestic violence, claims that the relevant verse is instead the cure for domestic violence.

This kind of repugnant denial of the reality of spousal abuse demonstrates the lengths that people will go to in order to defend their religious belief and to avoid having to confront a range of assorted, multicoloured elephants tap-dancing in their living rooms. It should serve as a wakeup call to all of us to make sure that we aren’t similarly justifying the inexcusable within our own religious traditions.

The Sura, or Verse and its translation

The “Wife Beating Sura” is contained within the fourth Sura of the Quran known in Arabic as “An-Nisa”, or “women”. It gains its name from the many references to women made in it. Having said this, the Sura is not simply about women, as it discusses issues of inheritance, orphans, children and marriage laws among others.

It is generally regarded as a “Medinan Sura” and therefore of being one of the later chapters to be revealed, most likely after Mohammed and his followers had been forced to migrate to Medina after fleeing persecution in Mecca.

[4:34] The men are made responsible for the women, and GOD has endowed them with certain qualities, and made them the bread earners. The righteous women will cheerfully accept this arrangement, since it is GOD’s commandment, and honor their husbands during their absence. If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. GOD is Most High, Supreme.

A fairly typical article in defence of it (written by a Muslim) can be found here.

I have used his preferred translation of the verse, but at the outset, I would point out that this is a very generous translation of the Sura. And despite this, the author has felt it necessary to include additional qualifiers that aren’t in the original text in brackets.

Thankfully, for us who don’t read Arabic, the Wikipedia entry on that verse contains alternate translations, none of which agree on the qualifiers and two which don’t include them at all. This demonstrates that making insertions aimed at changing the basic thrust of controversial texts is a common tactic of modern Islamic scholars, who want to make the Quran seem less threatening.

Interestingly enough, as I understand it, Islam generally holds that making modifications to the Holy Quran is blasphemy, but obviously not if it advances your argument.

In any case, these qualifiers are absent from the original Arabic text as are any indications that Allah is laying out a progression of events, rather than merely listing things to do to a rebellious wife in order of seriousness. For example M.K. Shakir translates the important section as “…those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them.” As can be seen, there is no hint of any stepped approach to the administration of punishment. It is simply a list of things to do.

The Submission of Women to Men in Islam

The first thing to note, is that the Sura relies on the assumption that a woman is the property and chattel of a man and that he can effectively tell her what to do and that she is required to submit to his decisions. If she fails to do so, she is being “rebellious” and Allah decrees that she may be punished for her transgression.

While this passage includes the expected submission of women to their husbands, the initial verse makes it clear that the submission required is much broader than that. Women are expected to submit to men as a category, not just to their husbands as individuals. Men are considered, “responsible” for women, in a way that treats them as if they were children.

This typifies the traditional patriarchal notion that women are inferior to men and not to be trusted with independent decision-making, or allowed to have any independent control over their lives.

Of course, in the 150 years since Western societies started actually letting women demonstrate their capabilities they have demonstrated exactly the opposite. While physically different, women are just as capable as men in every area that they set their minds to. Indeed over 100 years of psychological research has failed to find any evidence to suggest women are reliably inferior to men in any area. For a clear example of their ability one need to go no further than university graduations, were women consistently outperform men.

This last point is vital, as if god had ordained women to be inferior to men, science would have demonstrated this and proven it beyond doubt. Certainly, men and women are different, but neither is necessarily inferior to the other and thus the initial verse of the Sura is clearly wrong.

Domestic Violence: Where the Quran gets it wrong.

Irrespective of what the Quran says, spousal abuse is never acceptable. Regardless of the justification, beating any sentient, whether it be a person, or animal is wrong. Any god who claims otherwise, merely demonstrates that they lack the supposed attribute of being “good”. Even if the husband were to walk in on his wife cheating on him, he still does not have the right to attack, or physically abuse anyone. Certainly one could argue that doing so in such cases, would be understandable, but this doesn’t make it either moral, or virtuous behaviour.

The author of the article is overjoyed that “Abuse of a wife will not happen if the man learns to follow the clear commandments of God in this verse and in the order decreed. Abuse will only happen when a man does not follow these commandments, and thus fails to cool off and reason with himself or with his wife”.

Frankly this is a crock. As anyone with experience in DV will confirm, spousal abuse can occur without either partner laying a finger on the other. Psychological abuse is just as dangerous and immoral as physical abuse and perhaps even more so, because it is often not regarded as “abuse”. So, based on the fact that wives should not be rebellious, Sura 4:34 gives the husband a free hand to psychologically abuse his wife, as all he will be doing is “talking” to her.

Another reason that this is a crock, is that the threatened or implied threat of a beating is just as immoral as a beating itself. Intimidation, such as standing over the wife, slamming doors, throwing things and the like all are designed to remind the victim that failure to comply with the demands of the aggressor will result in these things happening to the victim, rather than the furniture. It isn’t subtle, but Sura 4:34 allows it, and indeed the reworked translation above encourages it in spades.

The author states that the “The theme of this Sura is to defend women’s rights, and countering injustice and oppression of women. Thus, any interpretation of verses in Sura 4 must be in favour of the women, not the other way around”. Sadly that is the author’s opinion and not contained within the Sura. Honestly read, Sura 4 puts women firmly under the control of the men with no way of breaking that control without going against the will of god. They either do what they are told, or face the punishment that Allah has ordained.

Even if one accepts the author’s argument that it gave women “rights that were first available to western women only a few decades ago, and some that still aren’t” (What that last is referring to I have no idea. I’ve read the Sura and can’t come up with anything), it still places women on the end of the male leash and a dog is still a dog, irrespective of how big the leash might be. The fact that Christianity and other religions, or cultures, have routinely supported the abuse of women is hardly a defence in favour of Islam also doing so.

The whole point of recognising the equality of women was to remove the leash, not merely make it longer.

Sura 4:34 vs the Ethical Principle

Clearly the author’s justifications of this text are a woefully poor excuse for the ongoing abuse of women. Even sillier it relies on the claim that a “believing” couple would never have any issues (conveniently ignoring non-physical abuse, as above) and that somehow this makes Islam somehow better than the alternatives.

But it doesn’t. In fact it merely demonstrates how its morality is in fact inferior to the Ethical Principle, “Act with Empathy”. If partners in marriage seek to understand the other, and treat them as they wish to be treated, domestic violence would not occur, as the partner doing the beating would have too much empathy for the suffering of his victim. To act with Empathy, one must accept the unstated premise that all people are equal and that none has any implicit, or arbitrary right to be considered superior to others.

Of course, a little empathy will probably reveal that most women would love to be banished from the bed of an obnoxious, violent partner. I can hear them screaming “punish me, punish me” all the way to the couch, where they settle in for a good night’s sleep free of fear and snoring.

Does anyone seriously believe that a Sura so lacking in basic empathy and compassion for the victims of abuse was dictated by a being even remotely worthy of being called god?

Obey me and my god, or go to hell!

Also, it is interesting to note that in an article addressing domestic violence, the author leaves us with a quite unsubtle threat:

“We have to know that we are not in this world to protect unrighteous behavior. We are in this world to be given a last chance to make the right choice and submit to God alone. Making the wrong choices will have consequences for all of us, both in this world and in the eternal Hereafter, for women and men equally.”

In other words, obey me and my god, or you will go to hell for eternity!

For now, let me just say that this is one of the oldest, most insidious, and most effective weapons in the religious zealot’s arsenal, particularly once you entertain even the slightest possibility that it might be true.

Once you are hooked on this, fear will dominate your every waking moment and nothing they ask of you can be considered immoral. Every natural defence against acting unethically, your conscience, integrity, personal morality and even common sense, becomes overwhelmed by the pervasive threat of eternal agony and damnation. Even independent thought becomes immoral, and those who choose to Act with Empathy become the agents of Satan, or perhaps even Satan himself.

Of course, in a typically hypocritical manner the threat is followed by the clearly contradictory reminder that:

“God is the Most Just, the Most Merciful”.

Let me state things clearly: If Allah allows the subjugation and beating of wives by their brutish, ignorant and often far stupider husbands, he is far less just, far less good and far less merciful than even I and not worthy of any kind of worship.

Are you a victim of Domestic Violence?

Are you, or is someone you know suffering from Domestic Violence, or abuse? Are you, or is someone you know perpetrating Domestic Violence? If so, do not hesitate to contact one of the excellent support services available.

Like this:

It is always intriguing how insecure so many militant believers actually are. They are so happy to abuse and condemn others, but can’t handle anybody taking them to task for their inaccuracies, or routine obnoxiousness.

If this is your immediate response to even mild criticism, then maybe you need to take a hard look in the mirror of life.

A while ago, I was invited to a closed group of atheists on Facebook, run by one of these people. Despite not being an atheist (at least not by a definition that they would accept), I accepted the invite, because there is often some good discussion in these groups.

Turned out that I was wrong!

Today, the group’s Rather Obsessed Founder (ROF) posted a link hostile to Islam, which was commented on by someone who was obviously a Muslim (don’t know how he managed to get in!), to which ROF immediately posted an obnoxious reply to the effect that Mohammed was a pedophile and a terrorist.

Ironically, I had just posted my own reply to our Muslim friend, pointing out that while Mohammed was a pretty cool guy for his time, his “model society” was still significantly flawed, especially in its treatment of women.

So, I am hardly an apologist for Islam! I replied to ROF calling him out for being both needlessly rude and factually incorrect. Firstly, while Mohammed did consummate his relationship with his nine-year old wife, there is no evidence that he met the DSM-V definition for pedophilia, which requires “a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger.”

Secondly, while Mohammed engaged in the sorts of raids and warfare that is typical of tribal societies, he demonstrated considerable reluctance to go to war and sought to spare captives where possible. For example, when he entered and captured Mecca he did so at the head of a band of unarmed followers. There was nothing to stop his enemies slaughtering him, but he took the chance and in doing so avoided considerable bloodshed.

ROF then sought to tell me that he “calls it like it is” and is “brutally honest”, before posting a rather unimaginative picture of Jesus telling me to “get the fuck out of here” (see above).

I responded by calling him out yet once again, and pointing out that every ignorant, anti-social jerk hides behind the “call it like it is” and “brutally honest” catchphrases. I also pointed out that I wasn’t going anywhere, and if he was that insecure that he couldn’t cope with people disagreeing with him, he should simply eject me from his closed-group, nightmare utopia.

Which he promptly did! To add insult to injury (his not mine) he then proceeded to block me entirely from his Facebook experience.

It just goes to show that what is important isn’t what people believe, but how they behave. Here you have a guy who is so convinced that he is right and that everyone else is wrong, that he sees no problem in hurling his anger, frustration and abuse at perfect strangers, while demonstrating that he is incapable of handling the gentlest of criticism.

In all honesty, I don’t see any difference between people like ROF and many of the fundamentalist theists that he opposes and attacks. In both cases, these people have not only already made up their minds, but tied their entire self-worth into an external identification, whether it be as an atheist, Christian, Muslim, or whatever.

Apply even the smallest of challenges to this worldview and the result is an overwhelming attack and/or rejection, as the person feels the very core of their being come under attack. God help us if these people ever achieve political power.

Once again, I find myself wishing to express the sentiment that I believe that all people of goodwill can and should work together in order to achieve a win-win solution to the problems that plague our world.

People are people, irrespective of were you find them, or what they believe. Good and bad exists in every person and in every culture (although I do believe that some cultures are better than others, because they do more to promote values of tolerance, understanding and compassion) and our job needs to be to reach out to people who are prepared to work with us towards a better world, irrespective of what they happen to believe about the nature of ultimate reality.

While I routinely criticise the belief structures of others, when it comes down to it, I know that nothing I write is likely to change your mind and don’t really care what you believe, unless those beliefs are antithetical to my wellbeing, or the wellbeing of others. If your beliefs tell you to persecute, condemn and kill people who are doing no harm to others, then I have to say that I don’t regard you as a person of good will.

If you think it is OK to be an obnoxious jerk, or violent towards those who disagree with you, it matters little to me if you are an atheist, agnostic, or theist, because if you believe this, then you are the problem, not the solution.

Today’s experience was with someone who honestly seems to believe that he is the solution. I’m guessing that despite his thin skin and possible self-esteem issues, his self-image is of being on the “right side” and probably even a “good person” for standing up for “Truth”. Despite this, all he is actually doing is making the world a more hostile, angry and antagonistic place for us all.

Time for us all to recognise that our beliefs don’t define whether we are agents of Light, or Dark. None of us holds reality in the palm of our hands and we need to learn to work together and play nice with the other children if we are ever going to bring peace to our world.

The crux of Hauerwas’ argument is probably as follows: “Is it any wonder that Jesus was despised and rejected? Is it any wonder when the church is faithful to Christ that she finds herself persecuted and condemned? Yet if such a church does not exist, the world has no alternative to the violence hidden in our fear of one another.”

Like many mystics before and after (including myself), Jesus was aware of his own Divinity and aware that there was another way, but found it difficult to live the life to which he was called. It is simply impossible to translate all of the nuances, subtleties and contradictions of Transcendent Experience into the mundane reality of the “monkey suit”.

By way of example, the Church is often a controlling, secretive, dogmatic organisation that has, since its creation by Roman Emperors sought to wield political influence of the most sordid sort. Its history is less about “an alternative to the violence” and more about the exercise of brutal, aggressive power and sometimes farcical zero sum politics. It is condemned, not because it is “faithful to Christ”, but because it is anything but faithful to the highest ideals to which he aspired.

Hauerwas’ essay is evidence enough of the failure of both Jesus and the Churches that have hijacked his life and teaching for their own purposes. The writer finds himself incapable of letting go of the rigidity of Dogma and the zero-sum thinking of religious absolutism and so has to shoehorn the life of Jesus into the story he wishes to create. I can’t help but suspect that only a person of great insecurity, or lack of imagination would need to posit that “the world has no alternative” to his view of reality and that only his prophet is a true representation of an Infinite Divine. As if the Infinite contained only one path, or had only one story to tell!

Blessed (or perhaps cursed) with visions of Infinite Divinity beyond normal comprehension, it is far too easy for the mystic to become trapped in grandiosity and ego. When Jesus claims that “Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice”, Pilate rightly retorts, “What is Truth?” (John 18:36-38). In doing so, he is engaging not with cynicism, but with a question that is fundamental to any understanding of reality and one which the Church and other spruikers of dogmatic certainty would rather you simply didn’t ask.

The truth is that an honest examination of the whole life of Jesus, as described in the Gospels, represents a conundrum only to those who imagine him to be something he wasn’t. Yes, he was Divine, but only to the extent that we are all Divine. More importantly, for both good and ill, he was as human as us and the greatest lessons that we can learn from his life are lost if we forget this.

Matthew tells us that his last words on the cross were “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me” (Matthew 27:46), clearly demonstrating that rather than being “100% God”, this was a man who was experiencing the disillusionment and loss of faith as his mystical ideas and imaginings clashed with the brutal, painful, terrifying reality of his impending death. Those words were not spoken by a god about to realise his grand plan, but by a frightened man faced with the real possibility of oblivion and the collapse of everything that he had held dear in his life.

Jesus’ last words on the cross, his failed prophecies and his frequent demonstrations of hubris, should give a warning to those of us who share his mystical journey: The “Truth” that we glimpse within the heart of Transcendent Experience, is often not literal truth and we should resist the urge to impose our reality on those around us, lest reality bites back.

If we pretend that Jesus was God, then we are forced to deny his human failings and waste time and energy on apologetics that deny the plain truth of the Gospels. If we recognise that Jesus was only human, we are freed to accept him as he was. We can open our eyes and our hearts to the truth of his story and realise that history has been replete with mystical voices who have called us to a better way. Even more exciting, we can see the life of Jesus as an invitation to engage with our own Mystical journey and to connect with the Divine Reality that lies within the heart of each of us.

The ideals of compassion, mercy, love, justice, tolerance, sacrifice and courage (among others) are all present within the story of Jesus. But so too are they present within the lives of Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius and thousands of other people throughout the ages. When we attempt to impose our reality on others, we inevitably destroy these very virtues, because when we believe ourselves right, and all others as wrong, we stop listening and deny empathy to the “other”; we become incapable of expressing the values we claim our God represents to any but our own.

Rather than working to prove our God’s “Truth” above all others, we should be working to connect with those who share our values and who share our vision of a better world irrespective of how their culture might happen to have packaged those truths.

I firmly believe that people of good will can find a win-win solution to the ills of our world and create a future of peace and harmony. But nothing sabotages good will and creates evil so quickly as the belief that everyone must conform to our view of reality and that people are evil and beholden to Darkness, simply because they believe differently.

The struggle between Light and Dark occurs both within and across cultures.

It is only by letting go of our own rigidity and by empathetically embracing the Divinity of others that we will ever be able to achieve the peace and prosperity that the people of our planet so rightly deserve.